Would not Yahoo-Wahoo be MORE impressed with me, who does not believe he exists yet still follows the (modern) judeo-christian ethic, than with YOU, who knows if you don't follow that ethic you jeapordize your immortal soul to the lake of fire that burns but does not consume??

In the final book of C.S. Lewis' "Chronicals of Narnia" series there was a soldier who proclaimed himself a follower of Tash (the bad guy) and he met Aslan (the lion/Jesus guy) in the final battle. When they were all ready to go "onward & upward" (to heaven/eternal life/nirvana/whatever) the soldier said something like he was sorry he couldn't go along because he was a follower of Tash. Aslan told him he has always been a good and decent and was actually following him by his actions... (or words to that efffect) *Forgive my crappy summary but I hope you get the jist.

Many years ago my recently retired boss died. She was kind, generous, a humanitarian & a philanthropist. A Good, Moral person. She was also -- gasp -- a Jew, not Saved or Born Again, the Horror! I was much younger, less doubtful and more devout at that time and sooo sad and concerned regarding the salvation of this lovely woman. I turned to one of the elders in the church I was attending at that time. (presbyterian) An equally lovely and moral woman. (Yes, woman) I explained my concerns. She simply smiled and stated "I believe God's arms spread much wider than a lot of people think...)

AND NO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF, NO POLOROID OF GOD WITH OPEN ARMS, NO WIRETAP OF GOD STATING HE WILL ACCEPT THOSE WHO TREAT EACH OTHER WITH LOVE AND RESPECT INTO HIS KINGDOM

She was also -- gasp -- a Jew, not Saved or Born Again, the Horror! I was much younger, less doubtful and more devout at that time and sooo sad and concerned regarding the salvation of this lovely woman. I turned to one of the elders in the church I was attending at that time. (presbyterian) An equally lovely and moral woman. (Yes, woman) I explained my concerns. She simply smiled and stated "I believe God's arms spread much wider than a lot of people think...)

Would the person who was universally considerd "good" and "decent' and who was--GASP OF ALL GASPS--ATHEIST have recieved the same answer??

Please answer this, if you would, LPA. I"m VERY curious.

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

She was also -- gasp -- a Jew, not Saved or Born Again, the Horror! I was much younger, less doubtful and more devout at that time and sooo sad and concerned regarding the salvation of this lovely woman. I turned to one of the elders in the church I was attending at that time. (presbyterian) An equally lovely and moral woman. (Yes, woman) I explained my concerns. She simply smiled and stated "I believe God's arms spread much wider than a lot of people think...)

Would the person who was universally considerd "good" and "decent' and who was--GASP OF ALL GASPS--ATHEIST have recieved the same answer??

Please answer this, if you would, LPA. I"m VERY curious.

Unfortunately I am no longer in touch with the woman who I spoke with originally to see if she would have given the same answer. I suppose my own answer would go along more with 1st part of my post --

I understand your point, I just disagree with it. If you don't know I don't have a dollar to give, but you believe I do, you'll act as if I do--at least until you discover I lied. Until that point, the reward is real. Same thing for eternal bliss after you die, it's just not confirmable until it's too late.

Disagreeing is your prerogative. However, your logic for doing so falls short. There is a rather dramatic difference between a reward that can be tested and thus is tangible, and a reward that cannot be tested and thus is intangible. You have yet to acknowledge this[1], and thus I do not think you fully understand my point.

Quote from: Boots

And I *do* draw a distinction between "acting good" because it's good, and "acting good" to be close to god, because the only reason to be close to god is for eternal bliss--for reward that I believe to be the truest truth of all.

For that distinction to matter, you first have to show that there is an actual difference between the moral actions of someone doing good because it's good, and someone else doing good because it's godly. Let me put it slightly differently for you. What is the difference between someone doing good because they think (vis-a-vis their moral code) it's the right thing to do, and someone else doing good because they think (vis-a-vis their religious beliefs) that God says that it's the right thing to do?

Quote from: Boots

If you don't draw a distinction between this, then may I presume you disagree with Mooby, and you don't have a problem with acting good in order to eventually perform evil, like in my corner case?

What "corner case"? And no, you may not presume that. Morality isn't a piggybank, where you 'save' morality over time so you can 'spend' it later on.

You are trying to say that a moral action performed for a definite monetary reward is functionally the same as a moral action performed for a possible future reward which is impossible to confirm that it even exists

Who said you have to do anything? You asked when He would contact you, and I suggested that you be proactive.

You're making no sense. If it wants a relationship with me, why do I have to be proactive at all?

I know how these conversation go with you. You have no answers. All you do is toy around with people's responses so as to drag things out until people get tired of trying to make sense of your delusions, just like you are doing right now. It's little different than trolling IMHO.

Who said you have to do anything? You asked when He would contact you, and I suggested that you be proactive.

You're making no sense. If it wants a relationship with me, why do I have to be proactive at all?

I have said before I am not a complete non-believer. I am really a doubter. My true aim is peace. I wouldn't mind a relationship with god or a higher power if it brought me peace. There is a TV minister I watch sometimes who has very good advice about positive thinking. But she is always referring to "conversations" she has had with god. She quotes them "verbatim." It seems to me more like these conversations are going on in her head. I'm just sayin'

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

NO the people who wrote stories about what Jesus said allude to it quite a few times. You could say the same thing about Richard Nixon,you can write anything 50 years after someone dies you just have to get enough idiots to believe it

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

You're making no sense. If it wants a relationship with me, why do I have to be proactive at all?

I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO!

This is the 4th post in a row where I'm giving you the same exact message. I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer to you. It appears to me that it is you who is toying with my responses.

However, I am growing weary of your little game, so allow me to go ahead and post my next several replies. I'll assume after each one you ask the same question again, and then accuse me of toying with your answers to something something dark side.

I do not speak for God.I am not God's messenger.I do not carry God's daily planner.When God adds an item to his daily schedule, He does not consult me.When I check my email in the morning, there is no message from God indicating His call schedule for the day.I do not hold God's pager.I am not God's family solicitor.When God is in a meeting, I do not know when it will end.I don't know when God is in a meeting.If God takes an extended brunch, I do not know whether it will bleed into lunch.I also don't know where God goes for brunch.Or how God takes His coffee.No, I've never had God's coffee.

In short, if you have an issue with when and how God contacts you, I am not the person to ask. I gave you suggestions in replies #57, 60, and 68 of who would be good to contact with such questions.

If it wants a relationship with [HAL}, then why do[es HAL] have to call in order for that relationship to happen?

"Have to" is always with respect to a goal. It doesn't mean anything on its own. Here, the clear context that HAL meant, was the goal that I bolded and underlined above. But since HAL never explicitly stated it (since it was so obvious), Mooby was able to interpret it in some ultimate sense of "having to" do something. Naturally, nobody "has" to do something, if no particular goal is specified. So Mooby picked the interpretation of HAL's post that made the least sense, knowing that it would dodge the intent of HAL's question.

This is the 4th post in a row where I'm giving you the same exact message. I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer to you. It appears to me that it is you who is toying with my responses.

However, I am growing weary of your little game, so allow me to go ahead and post my next several replies. I'll assume after each one you ask the same question again, and then accuse me of toying with your answers to something something dark side.

I do not speak for God.I am not God's messenger.I do not carry God's daily planner.When God adds an item to his daily schedule, He does not consult me.When I check my email in the morning, there is no message from God indicating His call schedule for the day.I do not hold God's pager.I am not God's family solicitor.When God is in a meeting, I do not know when it will end.I don't know when God is in a meeting.If God takes an extended brunch, I do not know whether it will bleed into lunch.I also don't know where God goes for brunch.Or how God takes His coffee.No, I've never had God's coffee.

Surprisingly, people who claim to have a close personal relationship can totally claim the above list. And many, many, many more ways in which there is absolutely no interaction between themselves and god.

That's always made me wonder what exactly those peoples' definition is of 'personal relationship'...it seems *awfully* close to 'not having a relationship'.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Surprisingly, people who claim to have a close personal relationship can totally claim the above list. And many, many, many more ways in which there is absolutely no interaction between themselves and god.

That's always made me wonder what exactly those peoples' definition is of 'personal relationship'...it seems *awfully* close to 'not having a relationship'.

As I see it...from a personal and psychological perspective...the relationship with God that people speak of is tantamount to the understanding they have of their self conscious ego. I believe that the concept of God is a means to attempt communication with the sub-conscious ID. Thus, prayer is equivalent to meditation.

The problem is that the concept of God comes with a lot of extra baggage which must be either reconciled with or disconnected from oneself in order to have faith in it/yourself.

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

If it wants a relationship with [HAL}, then why do[es HAL] have to call in order for that relationship to happen?

Again, he doesn't. I never claimed that he did.

Quote

Naturally, nobody "has" to do something, if no particular goal is specified. So Mooby picked the interpretation of HAL's post that made the least sense, knowing that it would dodge the intent of HAL's question.

Let me spell this out super clear for you.

The "question" that you posed is Question 2. Question 2 was a reply to a claim that I never made. My response to Question 2 will always be in the negative as I never made the claim the question assumes.

Question 2 was a reply to a response I made to Question 1. Question 1 is this:

To which my answer was, "I don't know." Then I suggested that if he wanted to find out, he had avenues to pursue.

Mooby: The train to Fakestown comes through this station.HAL: Mooby, if the train to Fakestown comes through this station, what time should I wait for it?Mooby: I don't know. Maybe you should call the railroad and ask?HAL: I thought you said it was coming to me. Is the train playing hard to get?Mooby: The train comes to everyone at this station. I don't schedule the trains, though, so maybe you should just call?HAL: If the train is coming here, why do I have to call?Mooby: You asked when the train will come, and I suggested you be proactive.HAL: You're making no sense. If the train is going to come, then why do I have to call to make it come? You have no answers. You're a troll.Mooby: I never said you had to call to make the train come. I am not in charge of the train schedules. Let me spell this out for you in a dozen different ways.Azgardi: You're ignoring HAL's question. If the train is supposed to come to the station, why should HAL have to call if HAL wants to board the train? That was obviously his intended question. Very sly and dishonest.

*Sigh*

I never said that he did. I said that HAL should call if he wants to know the time that the train arrives. If he wants to just wait at the station for the rest of his life, that's fine by me.

I also said that HAL should call God if he wants to know the time that God will contact him. If he wants to just wait around for the rest of his life, that's fine by me.

Next time please read the entire conversation before jumping to conclusions.

You said it wanted a relationship with him. That was your claim. Are you open to the idea that no god who wants a relationship with HAL exists?

EDIT: In response to your 'clarification' in that post, Mooby, would your answers to HAL have been any different if he'd been calling the station for info instead of calling to make the train come? You know he's not going to get an answer either way, after all.

Just because your ID was willing to accept the concept of God as a rational explanation of reality and a means of communication for self discovery doesn't mean that everyone's is. When HAL calls the train station he doesn't expect an answer so his sub-conscious mind does not create an answer for him.

Yours did.

If there were a real, tangible, objective and caring being operating the trains, don't you think they would answer the call for everyone?

Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Disagreeing is your prerogative. However, your logic for doing so falls short. There is a rather dramatic difference between a reward that can be tested and thus is tangible, and a reward that cannot be tested and thus is intangible. You have yet to acknowledge this

I do, in fact, acknowledge the differnce you're talking about. YOU, on the other hand, have not acknowledged taht there is NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE in a reward that can be proved, vs a reward that cannot be proved but is still BELIEVED (ie. taken on faith).

You are trying to say that a moral action performed for a definite monetary reward is functionally the same as a moral action performed for a possible future reward which is impossible to confirm that it even exists

You seem to be coming from the perspective that only a demonstrable, tangible reward is valuable; that you must see the dollar before you perform the good act(s) required to get it in order for it to be "counted" as acting for a reward. This is obviously not the case, because millions of people believe some version of heaven is their upcoming reward. I do, in fact, heartily disagree that a reward must be some tangible benefit in order to "count." If someone believes they're going to get something, wehther it be a dollar, or eternal bliss, they're acting for a reward. I believe it is your logic that is faulty here.

Quote

For that distinction to matter, you first have to show that there is an actual difference between the moral actions of someone doing good because it's good, and someone else doing good because it's godly. Let me put it slightly differently for you. What is the difference between someone doing good because they think (vis-a-vis their moral code) it's the right thing to do, and someone else doing good because they think (vis-a-vis their religious beliefs) that God says that it's the right thing to do?

Following your own moral code means you're doing it simply because you feel it's right, regardless of whether you're going to be rewarded for such. Doing it because someone (anyone--divine or not) tells you to is following orders. They may be identical actions, but done with different intent. And I believe that intent matters . . .

Quote from: Boots

If you don't draw a distinction between this, then may I presume you disagree with Mooby, and you don't have a problem with acting good in order to eventually perform evil, like in my corner case?

Quote

What "corner case"? And no, you may not presume that. Morality isn't a piggybank, where you 'save' morality over time so you can 'spend' it later on.

See reply #52 (page 2) on this thread, for the cornercase I'm speaking of--this is why intent matters to me.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 09:59:47 PM by Boots »

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

If it wants a relationship with [HAL}, then why do[es HAL] have to call in order for that relationship to happen?

Again, he doesn't. I never claimed that he did.

Moob, I humbly suggest you read your posts #57, #60, and #68 on this thread. Read them as if you asked the question you're answering, and you might begin to understand why folks are thinking that you did, in fact, claim what you are denying.

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

If it wants a relationship with [HAL}, then why do[es HAL] have to call in order for that relationship to happen?

"Have to" is always with respect to a goal. It doesn't mean anything on its own. Here, the clear context that HAL meant, was the goal that I bolded and underlined above. But since HAL never explicitly stated it (since it was so obvious), Mooby was able to interpret it in some ultimate sense of "having to" do something. Naturally, nobody "has" to do something, if no particular goal is specified. So Mooby picked the interpretation of HAL's post that made the least sense, knowing that it would dodge the intent of HAL's question.

Very sly, and very dishonest. Classic.

Fair assessment. HAL wanted to know why he should be the first one to make the call when it is God who wants the relationship. This is made pretty clear. Mooby suggested HAL made the first move, but why should he? It's not up to HAL. It's not he who is after a relationship. This might work as a suggestion if HAL was looking to make friends with God. But apparently this God guy loves HAL, wants to form a relationship but never even bothers to call. That doesn't suggest much of a desire. This is how I've read HAL's posts and it seems pretty clear to me that this is what he's hitting on. To add to it, there are those who die before any kind of contact is made. How is one to live a life according to rules set out by God if there's no confirmation of His existence? It doesn't seem God cares THAT much to make the effort for this relationship to even occur. I could be in hell before he makes that establishment. I have no reason to try to make this establishment, so if this God is real, I just have to be lucky he wants to get in touch with me before I die and without first having been on the path of the righteous or been given the chance to change my path to the one he desires.

Quote

Mooby: The train to Fakestown comes through this station*snip*

Poor analogy and certainly one that misses the point. 1) The train doesn't have sentience. 2) The train doesn't desire HAL that gets on. 3) A more accurate comparison would be if you told HAL to ask the train himself. It'd also be more accurate if HAL didn't know and didn't believe that this sentient train existed and that this train could or could not arrive at any point in his life time and that if HAL didn't submit to this train's will, he'd go to hell (perhaps an eternity of sitting next to the woman on the train showing pictures of her cat). It's also be more accurate if there were billions of people claiming that there other magic trains and that the magic trains they talk about? They're the only ones that exist and all other magic trains are non-existent. These different trains ask different things and offer different rewards and punishments. There's manuals with information on these varying magic trains.

Of course, HAL could just not take any of these people seriously. If this magic train is real and wants HAL to board him, then he should get in touch with HAL. It'd make no sense for HAL to get in touch first. He can't call and get a direct response from the train like you would with a phone call, no the train would expect you to think/speak in a line of prayer and maybe decide to get back to you, but generally not call you back. As for the conductors? Other members of staff? Or even other passengers who have had the luck to have been contacted by this magic train? They can't tell you anything, because it's up to the train.

In terms of a train service, we're looking at something only slightly more unreliable than the train system here in the UK.

What you're doing is playing the semantics game, which is what you've done to avoid the point so far.

Only seven people (theoretically) separate every human being in the world-- you can contact anyone on the planet in just seven steps. It is clear that the god(s) people claim exist don't really want a relationship with everyone. Or they are not powerful enough, smart enough, whatever enough to make it happen. Or they don't exist.

Ordinary humans should not have the power to block a god's signal. Humans should not have to utter the right magic words or assume the perfect yoga posture or have the correct mental attitude or anything. That gives all the power over god's behavior to the humans.

Any god worth paying attention to should be able to contact anyone it wanted, at any time, anywhere. Gods shouldn't have to check their appointment books to see if they can squeeze you in between the coffee break and lunch. They are not subject to human constraints or they are not gods. They are outside space and time, not subject to normal physics, remember?

You know that Mooby would not buy this line of bull as an explanation of why Allah or Krishna or the FSM has not contacted him. He knows it is because they do not exist.

We are talking about a being that supposedly created the universe and every living thing in it! This being should be able to at the very least be able to let everyone know, without equivocation or confusion, that it exists!

If Thor really, really wanted a relationship with you, do you think you could stop him from getting in touch?

You're making no sense. If it wants a relationship with me, why do I have to be proactive at all?

I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO!

This is the 4th post in a row where I'm giving you the same exact message. I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer to you. It appears to me that it is you who is toying with my responses.

However, I am growing weary of your little game, so allow me to go ahead and post my next several replies. I'll assume after each one you ask the same question again, and then accuse me of toying with your answers to something something dark side.

I do not speak for God.I am not God's messenger.I do not carry God's daily planner.When God adds an item to his daily schedule, He does not consult me.When I check my email in the morning, there is no message from God indicating His call schedule for the day.I do not hold God's pager.I am not God's family solicitor.When God is in a meeting, I do not know when it will end.I don't know when God is in a meeting.If God takes an extended brunch, I do not know whether it will bleed into lunch.I also don't know where God goes for brunch.Or how God takes His coffee.No, I've never had God's coffee.

In short, if you have an issue with when and how God contacts you, I am not the person to ask. I gave you suggestions in replies #57, 60, and 68 of who would be good to contact with such questions.